Burn or Boast? 403 (future subjunctive; otherwise unknown in the koineˇ period, but occurring in the Byzantine)” (15). The dramatic claim is echoed in Bruce Metzger’s TCGNT explanations, in turn promulgated by Daniel Wallace’s exegetical grammar (16). The charge of “grammatical monstrosity” continues to be readily found beyond the confines of North America (17). This sentiment is then used to explain the variants and their order of development. If the list above correctly anticipates the progress of the amendments, then the shift from kauchvswmai to kauqhvswmai was insuffi- cient; subsequent scribes could not accept the future subjunctive as a valid form of the verb kaivw, so they then (further) emended it to kauqhvsomai. Branding the future subjunctive inadmissible also explains the reverse trajectory: if the original was kauqhvsomai, somehow altered to kauqhvswmai, discomfort with the future subjunctive likely gave rise to an alternate amendment, kauchvswmai. These hypothetical trajectories leave a number of unanswered questions which, in turn, typify the issues at stake: If the original was kauqhvsomai, why would a scribe emend it to the rarer a. (even illegitimate) future subjunctive (kauqhvswmai)? b. A likely answer, relevant to the debate, is that some scribes may have been uncomfortable with the future indicative in a i{na clause, even though the latter construction is found in Scripture. c. The same question must be asked of the other trajectory. If kauchvswmai was the original, why emend this common aorist subjunctive to the rarer/illegitimate future subjunctive? d. Although not generally promoted by scholars, could kauqhvswmai be the original reading? If so, we could readily understand its emendation either to a more Pauline verb (kaivw is otherwise unused by the apostle) or to a more grammatically acceptable form. e. Yet, whether the first or middle step in a series of corrections, this demonstrates the complexities of trying to second-guess scribal sensibilities. In any of the trajectories we are attempting to determine whether a scribe was less uncomfortable with a future subjunctive (kauqhswmai) or a i{na clause with an indicative (kauqhvsomai). v f. All of these suggestions still intimate a general aversion to the future subjunctive, positing reasons for emendation away from kauqhvswmai. Yet why does this reading boast the widest array of external attestation? Why, for those who defend a sense of “burn” in 1 Cor 13,3, is this often the form from which they develop their argument? The validity of the future subjunctive becomes crucial in our determination of the text and its development. Not only is it important to (15) FEE, First Corinthians, 629, n. 18. (16) B.M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1971) 564, and (Stuttgart 21994) 498; D.B. WALLACE, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI 1996) 463, n. 441. (17) E.g. FOCANT, “1 Corinthiens 13”, 222, n. 274: “une monstruosité grammaticale”; LINDEMANN, Der Erste Korintherbrief, 285: “ein Barbarismus” (citing Heinrici’s nineteenth-century commentary).